Intimate Partner Aggression and Relationship Satisfaction across Attachment Styles Alyssa ...

113 Pages·2016·1.58 MB·English

Intimate Partner Aggression and Relationship Satisfaction across Attachment Styles
Alyssa Bonneville
Saint Paul University

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Human Sciences in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Master of Arts
©
2016 Alyssa Bonneville
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT ii

Abstract
This study presents a quantitative study exploring intimate partner aggression (i.e.
physical, verbal, relational) and relationship satisfaction across attachment styles (i.e.
avoidant, anxious, secure, and fearful). This study analyzed 170 participants, of which
77.8% were female participants and 22.2% were male participants. The sample ranged
from ages 20 to 70 and the mean age of the sample was 31.34 (SD = 11.73). The average
relationship length of the sample was 7.76 years (SD = 9.18). This study found that the
fearful attachment style is most at risk of engaging in verbal and relational aggression
with their intimate partners. Secure attachment was found to have the highest levels of
relationship satisfaction, whereas the fearful attachment style had the lowest scores of
relationship satisfaction. Finally, relationship length was found to have an effect on
relationship satisfaction. Overall, the current study targeted critical areas in the scientific
literature and created a starting block into research focusing on intimate partner
aggression and relationship satisfaction across attachment styles.

Keywords: Intimate Partner Aggression, Attachment Styles, Relationship Satisfaction
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT iii

Acknowledgments

This research and thesis would not have been possible without the support and
supervision Dr. Martin Rovers and the consultation work of Dr. Stephanie Yamin. Special
acknowledgment to my thesis committee, Dr. Cynthia Bilodeau and Dr. Terry Lynn-Gall, for
their continued encouragement and assistance. I would like to thank my partner, parents, and
my brother for their continued support throughout this process. I would also like to thank
Saint Paul University and the Counselling and Psychotherapy Centre who supported this
study. Finally, acknowledgment goes to The Society for Pastoral Counselling Research for the
research grant for this study.
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT iv

Table of Contents
Abstract……...……………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………….iii
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…1
Intimate Partner Physical Aggression………………………………………......…2
Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression…………………………………………..…..4
Intimate Partner Relational Aggression…………………………………..…….....5
Attachment Styles ……………………………………………………………..….8
History …………………………………………………………………….8
Romantic Attachment Styles …………………………………………….10
Secure…………………………………………………………….11
Anxious………………………………………………………..…12
Avoidant………………………………………………………….14
Fearful…………………………………………………………....16
Attachment Style Assessment Modalities…………………………….…18
Intimate Partner Aggression and Attachment Styles………………………….....20
Research Question……………………………………………………..………...29
Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………….....31
Hypothesis 1 ………………………………..……………………………31
Hypothesis 2 ………………………………..……………………….…..31
Hypothesis 3 ………………………………..……………………….…...31
Hypothesis 4 ………………………………..…………………………....31
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT v

Method……………………………………………………………………………….…..31
Participants……………………………………………………………………….31
Procedure………………………………………………………………………...32
Measures ……………………………………………………………………...…33
Demographics……………………………………………………………33
Attachment Style…………………………………....................................34
Intimate Partner Aggression Frequency…………………………..……...36
Dyadic Adjustment Scale…………………………………………...........38
Analyses………………………………………………………………………….39
Results……………………………………………………………………………………40
Intimate Partner Physical Aggression …………………………...………..….….41
Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression …………………………...…………….…..41
Intimate Partner Relational Aggression …………………………...…………….42
Relationship Satisfaction………………………………………….......................43
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..44
Intimate Partner Physical Aggression …………………………...………..……..45
Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression …………………………...…………….….47
Intimate Partner Relational Aggression …………………………...…………….49
Relationship Satisfaction………………………………………….......................50
Practical Implications…………………………………………………...………..55
Limitations……………………………………………………………………….59
Future Directions………………………………………………………………...61
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….62
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT vi

References………………………………………………………………………………..64

List of Tables
Table 1: Intimate Partner Physical Aggression Statistics………………………..…....…82
Table 2: ANCOVA Results for Intimate Partner Physical Aggression………..………...83
Table 3: Post Hoc Comparisons for Intimate Partner Physical Aggression……………..84

Table 4: Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression Statistics………………………..…….…..85
Table 5: ANCOVA Results for Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression………..……….….86
Table 6: Post Hoc Comparisons for Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression…………...…..87

Table 7: Intimate Partner Relational Aggression Statistics………………………..….…88
Table 8: ANCOVA Results for Intimate Partner Relational Aggression………..………89
Table 9: Post Hoc Comparisons for Intimate Partner Relational Aggression…………...90

Table 10: Relationship Satisfaction Descriptive Statistics……………………..………..91
Table 11: ANCOVA Results for Relationship Satisfaction………..……………..……..92
Table 12: Post Hoc Comparisons for Relationship Satisfaction………………………....93

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Measure……………………………………………………...……………94
Appendix B: Informed Consent ……………………………………………………......102
Appendix C: Debriefing Page……………………………..……………………..….…104
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter…………………………………………………….....106
Appendix E: Poster……………………………………………………….…………….107
ATTACHMENT STYLES AND INTIMATE PARTNER AGGRESSION 1

Intimate Partner Aggression and Relationship Satisfaction Across Attachment
Styles

Intimate partner aggression is a prevalent problem in our society that exists across
all social, economic, religious, or cultural backgrounds (Bookwala & Zanduik, 1998;
World Health Organization [WHO], 2012). Intimate partner aggression, is identified as
aggressive acts exhibited between romantic partners (WHO, 2012). The prevalence of
intimate partner aggression is highly variable depending on the study. WHO suggests that
worldwide intimate partner aggression ranges from a few percent of the population to
nearly everyone afflicted (WHO, 2012). For example, some researchers suggest that one
half to two thirds of couples seeking therapy report some form of aggression within their
relationship (Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997). Similarly, approximately
1.5 million females and 800,000 men from the United States reported experiencing
intimate partner aggression at some point in their lives (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Likewise, statistics gathered by the WHO (2014) state that as many as 38% of female
homicides were committed by their male partners. These rates illustrate that a
substantial proportion of adults are engaged in aggressive relationships,
highlighting a major area of concern. Intimate partner aggression can sometimes be
hard to capture because it is often under-reported (Gracia, 2004), suggesting that
prevalence rates may be even higher than indicated.
Researchers generally agree that aggression is an intentional act that can be
perceived as harmful by the victim (Harre & Lamb, 1983). A general definition for
aggression proposed by Braun, Kirchner, Hartman, Overton, and Caldwell (1988)
claimed, “Aggression is those behaviors— physical, verbal, and nonverbal—that
threaten, intimidate, demean, harass, hurt, injure and/or damage, regardless of the
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT 2

antecedent events and consequential events of those behaviors (p 468).” Bushman and
Anderson (2001) developed a more recent definition stating that aggression is “any
behavior that is directed towards another individual and is carried out with the intent to
cause harm (p 274).” Bushman and Anderson (2001) also argue that the perpetrator must
know the behavior will harm the victim and the victim must want to avoid the behavior.
When the term aggression is used, many people assume this means physical aggression.
However, research has argued that there are many different forms of aggression that can
be exhibited between partners, both overt and covert. There are three main forms that
have been highlighted in a handful of research studies as some of the most predominant
and harmful: physical, verbal, and relational (Carroll et al., 2010; DeMaris, 2000; Stets,
1990; Stockdale, Tackett, & Coyne, 2013; Testa & Leonard, 2001; Wang, Iannotti, &
Nansel, 2009). Each form of aggression is associated with different behaviours, actions,
and consequences.
Intimate Partner Physical Aggression
Several studies have examined intimate partner physical aggression (DeMaris,
2000; Stets, 1990; Testa & Leonard, 2001; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Physical
aggression is an act that is intended to cause physical harm to another person and is
perpetrated by acts such as hitting, kicking, or punching (Stets, 1990; Wang, Iannotti &
Nansel, 2009). Research has found rates of physical aggression to be present in 6% to
35% of romantic relationships that have lasted a year or more in length (Statistics
Canada, 2009; Testa & Leonard, 2001). More recently, research conducted by Halpern-
Meekin, Manning, Giordano, and Longmore (2013) reported that 4 in 10 young adult
relationships experience intimate partner physical aggression. As mentioned previously,
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT 3

prevalence rates of intimate partner physical aggression can vary depending on the
population examined and the measures used. Nonetheless, research demonstrates that
physical aggression does exist and can be quite common in intimate relationships.
It is important to outline the detrimental effects intimate partner physical aggression
can have on individual well-being and relationship quality. DeMaris (2000) performed a
longitudinal study with 3,508 romantic couples analyzing physical and verbal conflict.
He analyzed his data at a five and seven-year follow up wherein he had couples come
into a laboratory and participate in simulated experiments, consisting of watching videos
of intimate partner aggression and later completing self report questionnaires which
measured participant’s physical and verbal levels of aggression. DeMaris (2000) reported
that physical violence between partners was associated with decreased marital quality for
both partners. He also found that aggression exhibited by males caused greater disruption
in the relationship (i.e. divorce) when compared to female perpetrated aggression.
Additionally, Testa and Leonard (2001) reported that intimate partner physical aggression
was associated with marital dissatisfaction and increased levels of stress for the female
partner. Intimate partner physical aggression has also been found to be associated with
heavy alcohol consumption (Testa & Leonard, 2001). Research suggests that wives are
more likely than husbands to be severely impacted by intimate partner physical
aggression. Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, and Vivian (1992) reported that women are more
likely to sustain severe injuries such as broken bones, broken teeth, and injury to sensory
organs. Dominating another person through the use of physical acts of aggression is just
one form of intimate partner aggression.
Intimate Partner Verbal Aggression
AGGRESSION AND SATISFACTION ACROSS ATTACHMENT 4

Verbal aggression is another well-known form of aggression defined as a verbal
act with the intent to hurt another person (Stets, 1990). Verbal aggression can be
characterized by name-calling or teasing in a hurtful manner. Stockdale, Tackett, and
Coyne (2013) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between gender and
intimate partner verbal aggression. They included 20 studies and found that intimate
partner verbal aggression was utilized by both genders but not to the same degree, since
women were found to engage in verbal aggression significantly more than men
(Stockdale, Tackett, & Coyne, 2013). The authors attribute this finding to the notion that
women are more skilled verbally in comparison to men and thus, are at an increased risk
of utilizing intimate partner verbal aggression (Stockdale, Tackett, & Coyne, 2013).
According to Statistics Canada (2009) one in five Canadians reported experiencing name-
calling and insults by their partners. A longitudinal study performed by Testa and
Leonard (2001) examined 543 couples regarding the impact of verbal aggression. They
measured marital quality, stability, and aggression through self-report and interviewer-
administered questionnaires. They reported that 91.4% of couples in their sample
engaged in verbal aggression, demonstrating nearly all couples in their sample reported
some amount of verbal aggression. In another recent study, researchers found that five in
10 young adult couples reported verbal aggression, characterized by name calling,
criticism, ridicule, and put-downs, exhibited by both males and females in their present
relationship (Halpern-Meekin, Manning, Giordano & Longmore, 2013). While studies
indicate that there is variance in the frequency of verbal aggression, although, nonetheless
demonstrating that verbal aggression may be present in romantic relationships to one
degree or another.